Nuancing the "Original Church" to include Eastern Orthodox, Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox

[Dovekin]

Suppose they are baptized in a Catholic family but the Catholic couple is a SS couple and are not faithful to Catholic teaching. Are the children who were baptized then Catholics or not?

Whatever faith it is that brought them to baptism, all sins are forgiven in their baptism and the voice of the Father echoes from the baptism of Jesus, saying “this is my beloved child.”

The child is a Catholic. Subsequent acts may affect that relationship, as in any family.

This idea has had some regrettable consequences, like Pius IX taking a baptized Jewish boy away from his parents. But it is fundamental to the idea of baptism, no matter how poorly we apply it.

 

[AlNg]

The child is a Catholic.

So any baptized infant is a Catholic? Including those baptized by a Protestant clergyman?

 

[steve-b]

As someone who went to college for a few degrees who wrote term paper after term paper, I’ve seen absolutely nothing from you that would meet an objective standard as being “properly referenced”. But suit yourself.

when you cite a source, you need to mention its author(s), title of the work, and genre (book, article, or web page, etc.). I do that. YOU DID NONE OF THAT.

steve-b:

I provided The authors that provided the evidence I gave, the web page, AND the Credentials of those Authors

Vonsalza:

Indeed. I particularly enjoyed your reference to Catholic Theologian Walter Kasper for providing a credible source on Orthodoxy (which is akin to asking Baptists about Catholics and expecting a fair and honest answer as well as your positioning of Orthodox Bishop Ware’s perspective in a way that could only be possible if you didn’t actually read what he wrote. As you appear to have [not] done…

1. I quoted Bp Ware, with source properly referenced. I even gave his book as a link…which I said that I already read
2. We’re not talking about in this thread, what Baptists think.

Vonsalza:

If only the Orthodox had equally credible academics and theologians on their side… Oh. Wait.

What is it you want to say?

Vonsalza:

Your core issue, Steve, is that you love to appeal to logos as the primary defense of your Catholicity despite your attachment being based overwhelmingly on a core appeal to pathos. -Which is fine! Absolutely fine! But that makes you far less academically impartial than you try to actually portray yourself. This became rather obvious from your outbursts above that drew some caution from a few of your fellow brothers in the faith.

It’s Logos AND pathos AND Faith AND Reason AND … etc etc.

therefore, it’s not a bunch of either/or’s but ANDS

Vonsalza:

Only a man firmly in the grip of emotional zealotry can view events like Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Holy Scripture itself in addition to the repeat, commonly found critiques levied at the Roman bishop by other patriarchs and fathers (even elderly Augustine) during the first millennium A.D. and STILL look at the Petrine Function and conclude “Oh my Lord, my God! How infallible Peter’s heir is! How supreme! How immediate!”

Have you never seen the answers to any of that in the years you’ve been here?

Vonsalza:

He grew into those functions. Papal power developed - unambiguously (if I had to pick a date, I’d pick the coronation of Charlemagne as the first Papal Sergeant at Arms Holy Roman Emperor). And if the Orthodox want to say that those novel developments were illicit, they have a good argument from a purely rational basis.

Have you never seen the answers to that while here at CAF?

Vonsalza:

All due respect to the Catholics on this board. I fully recognize that this is a Catholic “house”. I’m just point out that some dissenting views may be legitimate.

And dissent is met with answers.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Children baptized in Catholic families who are faithful Catholics, pass onto their children that faith and those conditions.

Suppose they are baptized in a Catholic family but the Catholic couple is a SS couple and are not faithful to Catholic teaching. Are the children who were baptized then Catholics or not?

If They are baptized in the Catholic Church, they are Catholic.

Re: unfaithful Catholics

That gets into one’s sins they are in. If one dies in mortal sin, baptism or not, Catholic or not, they go to hell.

 

[steve-b]

Eastern Orthodoxy has its origin in the apostolic churches, but apostolic churches that separated from Rome.

So there are two different senses:

(1) Eastern Orthodoxy’s traditions, liturgies, and apostolic origins go back the shared origin of all apostolic churches
(2) Eastern Orthodoxy as a communion of churches, i.e., “The Orthodox Church” does not go back to the beginning, since Christ founded one Church, which is the Catholic Church.

Point #2 is the key. And Schism from the Catholic Church is not a consequence free sin as so many people think it is. Scripture & Tradition warns of that very clearly

 

[steve-b]

A cautionary note for those who refer to “the Chair of St Peter.”

There are two chairs with a claim to that name. One is a relic of St Peter that is in St Peter’s basilica at the Vatican, in an elaborate Bernini designed reliquary. It is a chair from which St Peter taught.

The other “Chair of St Peter” is a short distance away at the Cathedral of St JohnLateran. This is the seat of the bishop of Rome, comparable to the bishop’s chair in any cathedral in the world. It is significant but not ostentatious. The Lateran cathedral is the mother church of the Catholic church. It was donated by Constantine for that purpose. Interestingly, the main altar has another relic of St Peter, a table used by the saint for the Eucharist.

When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he probably is speaking from the Lateran. but I don’t know that for sure. On 22 February, we celebrate the Chair of Peter, the one at St Peter’s. The cathedral at the Lateran is recalled in November. The differences might help some articulate what they are saying about the papal identity.

Just a comment

When judges make rulings “from the bench” it doesn’t mean they have to be sitting on a specific bench or it isn’t official. Like Moses seat. Did Moses actually have a specific chair he sat on to make rulings? We wouldn’t even know about “Moses seat” and that the scribes and Pharisees sat on it, if it wasn’t for that comment from Jesus. But also, Jesus listeners knew what He was talking about because of oral tradition that they hold to be true. Same with the chair of Peter. It’s not like Peter had a specific chair he sat on.

But we celebrate the chair because of it’s tradition of authority

 

[Vonsalza]

when you cite a source, you need to mention its author(s), title of the work, and genre (book, article, or web page, etc.). I do that. YOU DID NONE OF THAT.

A few issues here, Steve;

1. When you cite a source, you also need to mention where in the source the info can be found. Giving a guys name and the book he wrote doesn’t get the job done (as your audience probably isn’t going to buy the book and scour a few hundred pages in the hopes of proving you right. Sorry Bud.
2. Related, you’ve consistently refused to cite an original source that describes how many Latins died in the Massacre of the Latins and you’ve consistently refused to cite an original source that shows where the Byzantine residents of the city sold children into Muslim slavery. So at best you fail to meet your own standards.
3. As a last consideration, common knowledge doesn’t require sourcing as it refers to an established fact beyond scrutiny - Like Genoa and Venice waging their little guerilla wars on the streets of Constantinople shortly before the citizens of that city rioted and expelled them all.

We’re not talking about in this thread, what Baptists think.

No, we aren’t in that spot. What we’re discussing is the bone-headed practice of using an outside, biased party as a supposedly neutral authority on a topic.

As you missed the point there, I’ll be more clear - If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, refer to a broad collection of Orthodox theologians; not a Catholic theologian. Again, the error is akin to referring to Baptist ministers for a supposedly neutral presentation on Catholicism.

What is it you want to say?

Your references consistently reek of confirmation bias. You consistently fail to include similarly qualified, dissenting voices in your perpetually skewed presentations on whatever issue you’re opining on. And I guess this is a fine and expected practice on a religious forum, but let’s just not make the mistake of labeling the practice as anything approaching scholarly or neutral.

It’s Logos AND pathos AND Faith AND Reason AND … etc etc.

There are only 3 “artistic proofs” per Aristotle (who coined them).
Logos - Logic
Ethos - Credibility
Pathos - Emotion

Happy to provide a proper reference should you require it but, again, I claim “common knowledge”.

 

[Vonsalza]

Have you never seen the answers to any of that in the years you’ve been here?

Sure. Divorced of preexisting religious conviction (thus playing to confirmation bias), they’re rather unconvincing.

Even Steve Ray, Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin have admitted the development of the papacy in their writings (which is good because refusing to recognize the obvious would tank their credibility on the issue). Many dissidents of the Roman Catholic Church simply think that such development is invalid. Illicit. Disqualifying of the Petrine Function.

Take the Filioque issue. The big “beef” isn’t so much about the procession of the Spirit. The issue is whether or not the pope can legitimately and unilaterally change a definition by an Ecumenical Council. The non-Roman Church was pretty unanimous on the response of “Heck No!” - even pre-schisms. It just ceased to be a restraining force for the bishop of Rome because the non-Roman Church was decimated after the first millennium was over.

BTW, do you need citations for any of that? I again claim “common knowledge”.

And dissent is met with answers.

In honesty, they seem to be rather unconvincing when considered separate of preexisting faith to provide the needed buttressing.

It’s a repeat-issue in both the Great Schism and Reformation because the answers provided just aren’t good enough to a lot of rational people.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well, yes, an Orthodox would say this.

But the point is that neither an Orthodox nor a Catholic can claim “two sister churches” in the sense that BOTH are equally the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Someone posted a Vatican document recently that, when we say “sister churches,” we really mean particular churches — not as if there are not TWO Catholic Churches, whereas one time there was only ONE.

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, yes, an Orthodox would say this.

There ya go. And if you’re interested, you can delve into that big question of “why” and actually give your opposition some fair air time where they frame the issue their way instead of allowing an outside party to frame it for them.

But the point is that neither an Orthodox nor a Catholic can claim “two sister churches” in the sense that BOTH are equally the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

Right. They hold each other in schism.

Someone posted a Vatican document recently that, when we say “sister churches,” we really mean particular churches — not as if there are not TWO Catholic Churches, whereas one time there was only ONE.

I’d have to consider the document, but off-the-cuff that sounds about right. Just recall that they both claim to be the “One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic” Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think they do, C1S. Their Primus seems to more closely reflect the Primus of the early Apostolic Church where Peter’s heir was neither immediate nor supreme nor infallible.

Pre-Nicene Papal Power =/= Post-Vatican 1 Papal Power per virtually any credible secular historian.

There will always be development. Always. The issue, again, is whether or not the primacy is inherent to Peter’s historical successor. Did he pass on his divinely-appointed office to his successor in Rome, or not? Yes, if you (1) take the pre-Byzantine view, that is, 1st-4th centuries until Council of Constantinople; (2) You take the view which was always the Roman view (wouldn’t they know the nature of their own office?? hmmm…) and (3) the views of non-Byzantine Eastern churches, which, even if separated now, had a clearly Roman theory of Petrine primacy (again, see the Assyrian theologian who became Catholic).

And let’s not forget Byzantine theologians themselves:

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

 

[catholic1seeks]

And yet, it is still Catholic teaching that the separated Eastern churches still have access to the same sacramental mysteries. They are fed at the Eucharist. They receive real Baptism. They have pure doctrine other than a few points. Their prayer and liturgical life is vast, and they are mindful of the apostolic church and especially the church fathers. Their view of the moral life is quite similar.

Their situation is not so dire as you may think.

 

[Vonsalza]

There will always be development. Always.

When “development” is interpreted as meaning “and increase and concentration of power to the Petine Seat”, we tragically disagree.

When “development” is the perpetual clarification of doctrine by the Church as issues arise over time? We couldn’t agree more.

The issue, again, is whether or not the primacy is inherent to Peter’s historical successor.

As the Orthodox recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as Peter’s successor, that doesn’t seem to be the issue.

Again, Peter ruled from cities other than Rome and the Roman Catholic papacy hasn’t been limited to Rome in its own official history. Again, the Avignon and Byzantine papacies had popes that weren’t in Rome. As such, both parties must tacitly agree that the Petrine Function is mobile. It can move because it has in the past - beyond debate.

Did he pass on his divinely-appointed office to his successor in Rome, or not?

Depends on what you mean by “in Rome”. How long was the papacy in Avignon? 70 years?

And again, Peter himself ruled from more places than just Rome. The papacy has been clearly mobile in several spots in even Catholic history.

(2) You take the view which was always the Roman view (wouldn’t they know the nature of their own office?? hmmm…)

Ever considered that they might be collectively biased in their own favor?

(3) the views of non-Byzantine Eastern churches, which, even if separated now, had a clearly Roman theory of Petrine primacy (again, see the Assyrian theologian who became Catholic).

What do the Copts call the Patriarch of Alexandria? It’s “Pope”, right?

 

[steve-b]

A few issues here, Steve;

1. When you cite a source, you also need to mention where in the source the info can be found. Giving a guys name and the book he wrote doesn’t get the job done (as your audience probably isn’t going to buy the book and scour a few hundred pages in the hopes of proving you right. Sorry Bud.
2. Related, you’ve consistently refused to cite an original source that describes how many Latins died in the Massacre of the Latins and you’ve consistently refused to cite an original source that shows where the Byzantine residents of the city sold children into Muslim slavery. So at best you fail to meet your own standards.
3. As a last consideration, common knowledge doesn’t require sourcing as it refers to an established fact beyond scrutiny - Like Genoa and Venice waging their little guerilla wars on the streets of Constantinople shortly before the citizens of that city rioted and expelled them all.

I not only cited my sources, I gave the link. All one has to do is click on the link. It gives the author, the date, and the genre. Do you know that there are people who actually don’t even bother to click on the links I give?

Vonsalza:

What we’re discussing is the bone-headed practice of using an outside, biased party as a supposedly neutral authority on a topic.

C’mon, and YOU qualify as THE unbiased party, neutral on the topic? By your standard the only source you will accept is the one you agree with

Vonsalza:

As you missed the point there, I’ll be more clear - If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, refer to a broad collection of Orthodox theologians; not a Catholic theologian.

If YOU want to provide those theologians, then do it. I’m not here to do YOUR homework for you.

Vonsalza:

Your references consistently reek of confirmation bias. You consistently fail to include similarly qualified, dissenting voices in your perpetually…

I provided A varied group of scholars, historians and theologians properly referenced.

steve-b:

It’s Logos AND pathos AND Faith AND Reason AND … etc etc.

Vonsalza:

There are only 3 “artistic proofs” per Aristotle (who coined them).
Logos - Logic
Ethos - Credibility
Pathos - Emotion

Happy to provide a proper reference should you require it but, again, I claim “common knowledge”.

OK

But to be fair, You never said you were going for artistic proofs per Aristotle

The topic is about theology, I was thinking theology

logos = word of God
Ethos wasn’t mentioned by you
Pathos = suffering, pity, sadness

See why proper referencing is important?

 

[Vonsalza]

C’mon, and YOU qualify as THE unbiased party, neutral on the topic? By your standard the only source you will accept is the one you agree with

Oh not at all. I’m not an unbiased party as I’m convinced that the papacy has clearly grown beyond the scope Christ assigned to it.

I’m just trying to make up for your academic dishonesty on the issue by presenting one of the opposing views since you appear to want to frame the discussion in a rational way.

Internalize this, Steve:
Generally, the very best sources of information on a topic are the in-field experts on that topic. If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, read Orthodox publications.

As an aside, the very best critics are those that don’t have an ideological dog in the fight, Steve. You may want to read those if you’re trying to have a higher, more “meta” view of the issue.

If YOU want to provide those theologians, then do it. I’m not here to do YOUR homework for you.

From the bottom of my heart - ditto, Steve. But I’m not referring to odd or obscure beliefs in Orthodoxy. If you need bona fides on basic Orthodox belief, we should conclude because I disdain spoon-feeding.

I provided A varied group of scholars, historians and theologians properly referenced.

We’ve addressed this, Steve. Your favorite expert on Orthodox ecclesiology is a Catholic and your presentation of Orthodox Bishop Ware was so over-the-top dishonest that I’m not the only one on this thread that’s called you out…

Are you familiar with “confirmation bias”, Steve?

steve-b:

It’s Logos AND pathos AND Faith AND Reason AND … etc etc.

You never said you were going for artistic proofs per Aristitle

When someone refers to any of the artistic proofs, they can’t help but do it per Aristotle as that’s where they come from, Steve. *sigh

 

[steve-b]

catholic1seeks:

There will always be development. Always.

When “development” is interpreted as meaning “and increase and concentration of power to the Petine Seat”, we tragically disagree.

That’s not the way it happens

Who does Jesus build His Church on? Peter and those in union with Peter
Who did Jesus give the keys to the Kingdom to? Peter
Who did Jesus say would rule? Peter

Jesus set up the hierarchy of authority.

Vonsalza:

The issue, again, is whether or not the primacy is inherent to Peter’s historical successor.

As the Orthodox recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as Peter’s successor, that doesn’t seem to be the issue.

Is that true for the Russians? They are the majority position in Orthodoxy. As I understand ~58% of the total or so. Meaning all the other Orthodox churches combined, make up the remainder ~42%. Do the Russians give the EP Petrine recognition?

Vonsalza:

Again, Peter ruled from cities other than Rome and the Roman Catholic papacy hasn’t been limited to Rome in its own official history. Again, the Avignon and Byzantine papacies had popes that weren’t in Rome. As such, both parties must tacitly agree that the Petrine Function is mobile. It can move because it has in the past - beyond debate.

Peter is the leader. No matter where he is. Peter’s see was Rome. And that is where he died. That is his See, and those who follow him there.

Vonsalza:

Did he pass on his divinely-appointed office to his successor in Rome, or not?

Depends on what you mean by “in Rome”. How long was the papacy in Avignon? 70 years?

And again, Peter himself ruled from more places than just Rome. The papacy has been clearly mobile in several spots in even Catholic history.

The Petrine succession was recorded even as early as Irenaeus. And Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle in timeline. Irenaeus gives 12 bishops by name from Peter, in Rome, to make his point about Preeminent authority

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s not the way it happens

Who does Jesus build His Church on? Peter and those in union with Peter
Who did Jesus give the keys to the Kingdom to? Peter
Who did Jesus say would rule? Peter

Jesus set up the hierarchy of authority.

Sure. And for the umpteenth time, the Orthodox claim Peter’s Heir is in Constantinople. They didn’t do away with the Petrine Office. They’re the one’s remaining that are actually keeping it intact, as they would argue.

Is that true for the Russians? They are the majority position in Orthodoxy. As I understand ~58% of the total or so. Meaning all the other Orthodox churches combined, make up the remainder ~42%.

Of course. The Russian Patriarch is that of “Moscow and All Rus’” and no more.

It’s not like that’s the first time in history the seat didn’t directly oversee the majority of Christians. Latin Christianity wasn’t the largest group until after the rise of Islam was well underway.

Peter is the leader. No matter where he is. Peter’s see was Rome.

Peter’s see was wherever Peter was.

The Petrine succession was recorded even as early as Irenaeus. And Irenaeus was one man away from an apostle in timeline. Irenaeus gives 12 bishops by name from Peter, in Rome, to make his point about Preeminent authority

I like Iranaeus. He’s tells us that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome and that its role was that of arbiter. Not ruler.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

C’mon, and YOU qualify as THE unbiased party, neutral on the topic? By your standard the only source you will accept is the one you agree with

Oh not at all. I’m not an unbiased party as I’m convinced that the papacy has clearly grown beyond the scope Christ assigned to it.

I’m just trying to make up for your academic dishonesty on the issue by presenting one of the opposing views since you appear to want to frame the discussion in a rational way.

Good grief! You have no sources to back YOU up, you admit you’re biased, but you’re convinced you’re correct and the Catholic Church established by Jesus, and gave all His promises to, is wrong?

Vonsalza:

Internalize this, Steve:
Generally, the very best sources of information on a topic are the in-field experts on that topic. If you want to learn about Orthodoxy, read Orthodox publications.

Here’s your chance. Show us by references properly referenced that you can make your case. Stop pushing this off to someone else but you.

Vonsalza:

As an aside, the very best critics are those that don’t have an ideological dog in the fight, Steve. You may want to read those if you’re trying to have a higher, more “meta” view of the issue.

Here’s your chance. Make YOUR case.

steve-b:

If YOU want to provide those theologians, then do it. I’m not here to do YOUR homework for you.

Vonsalza:

From the bottom of my heart - ditto, Steve. But I’m not referring to odd or obscure beliefs in Orthodoxy. If you need bona fides on basic Orthodox belief, we should conclude because I disdain spoon-feeding.

steve-b:

Again you dodge the point. You have no answers. Just disagreement backed up by emotion and drama.

I provided A varied group of scholars, historians and theologians properly referenced.

Vonsalza:

We’ve addressed this, Steve. Your favorite expert on Orthodox ecclesiology is a Catholic and your presentation of Orthodox Bishop Ware was so over-the-top dishonest that I’m not the only one on this thread that’s called you out…

You disagree, you complain, and you haven’t addressed anything.

 

[Vonsalza]

Here’s your chance. Make YOUR case.

The belief that the Petrine Function is correctly carried out by the Eastern Orthodox Church is no more provable than the belief that the Petrine Function is correctly carried out by the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholics like yourself use Iranaeus to support the western understanding of the bishop of Rome just like Orthodox will use Iranaeus to support the eastern understanding of the bishop of Rome.

Catholics will look at the undeniable expansion of papal power and see a good and right thing. Eastern Christians look at the same thing and see the creeping expansion of sin.

Neither view can be indubitably proven nor disproven because they are emotional judgements on the same data set. This is why multiple views continue to persist.

You disagree, you complain, and you haven’t addressed anything.

I need you to see the obvious holes and hidden assumptions in your arguments, Steve. The western view doesn’t get to be right by default. Neither do the eastern views.

You cannot indubitably make your case because the legitimacy of your belief is emotionally rooted. The defensive appeals to logos are only secondary cladding.

As such, rational arguments against the Roman view of the Church will never generate sufficient currency to buy your allegiance since you’ve been emotionally bought-and-paid-for.

And again; this is fine. You just need to understand that reality.

 

[catholic1seeks]

As the Orthodox recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as Peter’s successor, that doesn’t seem to be the issue.

Again, Peter ruled from cities other than Rome and the Roman Catholic papacy hasn’t been limited to Rome in its own official history. Again, the Avignon and Byzantine papacies had popes that weren’t in Rome. As such, both parties must tacitly agree that the Petrine Function is mobile. It can move because it has in the past - beyond debate.

It’s not about Rome, but about Peter. Peter was still chief Apostle even before he was in Rome. Peter was Christ’s steward in Jerusalem, and then in Antioch, and then in Rome.

But Rome is where he left his chair, his line of succession. The Roman bishop has the Petrine office because he is the successor to Peter in the same way all early Christians understood “apostolic succession”: that certain bishops can be traced back to an Apostle.

When you talk about Peter changing from Rome to Constantinople, it seems like a case of special pleading, for the idea that Peter’s successor shifts around to different successions in different cities — and not just different cities in itself, which is irrelevant at the moment — is only ever talked about in Peter’s case. But that doesn’t make sense, because when we talk about apostolic succession, we are talking about historical, tangible realities. Constantinople, for example, likes to claim succession from Andrew. If Constantinople screws up, people in some random Russian city (for example) aren’t going to suddenly claim Andrew’s succession.

And so here’s my point I’m trying to stress: Peter’s office, his role as chief shepherd, is passed on at Rome because that is the bishop who historically succeeds him in his capacity as chief shepherd.

See how another Eastern bishop (from Palestine) says it:

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound.

For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned t_o feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church_; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, 'lovest thou Me? --Stephen, bishop of Dora, Acts of Lateran Synod 649.

What do the Copts call the Patriarch of Alexandria? It’s “Pope”, right?

I’m not sure if this is any special significance — (1) Coptic Orthodox are not in communion with Rome anymore; (2) “Pope” is a title that was applied to many Christian leaders, sometimes even simple priests. That it became the title of the Bishop of Rome doesn’t really say much about his office.